It was supposed to be a federation of mostly autonomous states. The word "state" in fact is normally used for a sovereign nation.
This is the concept referred to by the word "Federalism", so "strong Federalism" would be a form of government with powerful states and less power in Washington, not a stronger Federal goobermint. I fully agree with you that this would be a good thing.
The Federalist party was a party which strong central government advocates, like Alexander Hamilton, belonged to. Washington, Jefferson, Madison, and others opposed this form of government fearing another aristocracy as in England.
The Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union (commonly referred to as the Articles of Confederation) was the first governing constitution of the United States of America. The Articles’ ratification (proposed in 1777) was completed in 1781, and legally united what were originally several sovereign and independent states, allied under the Articles of Association into a new sovereign federation styled the “United States of America”. Under the Articles (and the succeeding Constitution) the states retained sovereignty over all governmental functions not specifically relinquished to the central government. Though called a “confederation,” the terminology of the day makes this synonymous with what today is understood as a federal government, a usage similar to that of the Canadian and Swiss confederacies.
When the Articles of Confederation failed, our Constitution was drafted providing more centralized power, but certainly balanced. That balance was challenged in the 1860’s and the 1960’s, and is being challennged again.